People v. Holt, No. 59448
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | STAMOS |
| Citation | 18 Ill.App.3d 10,309 N.E.2d 376 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harvey HOLT, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 59448 |
Page 376
v.
Harvey HOLT, Defendant-Appellee.
[18 Ill.App.3d 11]
Page 377
Bernard Carey, State's Atty. Cook County, for plaintiff-appellant; Kenneth L. Gillis, Mary Ellen Dienes, Chicago, of counsel.Lawrence E. Kennon, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.
STAMOS, Justice.
Defendant, Harvey Holt, was charged with attempt rape, armed robbery, and aggravated battery. The trial court sustained defendant's motion to suppress certain items of physical evidence, namely, a revolver and a pair of trousers. The State, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604 (a)(1), appeals only that part of the order regarding the trousers. Although no brief has been filed by defendant, the practice of this court has been to consider the merits of such appeals. * (People v. Caruso, 2 Ill.App.3d 80, 276 N.E.2d 112.) At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, the following evidence, relevant to the issue on appeal, was presented:
At approximately 6:30 A.M. on October 24, 1971, Josephine Peek was the victim of an armed robbery, aggravated battery, and attempt rape. The attack was observed and interrupted by a neighbor who endeavored to capture the assailant. In fleeing, the assailant slipped and fell on a muddy patch of ground. The neighbor was unable to apprehend the assailant, but he did retrieve and turn over to police an address book and a knife from where the assailant fell in the mud.
After learning that the address book belonged to Harvey Holt, Police Investigator Storck and other officers went to Holt's apartment at 12:00 noon on the same day the offense was committed. According to Officer Storck, the defendant admitted the officers into his apartment, and after inquiry, stated that the address book belonged to him. Holt was arrested and immediately thereafter, the officer, from where he was standing, saw a pair of trousers on the bed in the adjacent bedroom; he noticed that the arrestee was dressed only in underwear and was not wearing trousers. Storck testified that as he observed the trousers on the bed, he recalled that the assailant had fallen into mud while escaping, and that the victim had received wounds causing her to bleed. However, it was not until Storck walked into the bedroom, that he actually saw bloodstains and mud on the trousers.
Defendant denied that the trousers were on the bed, but gave conflicting testimony
Page 378
as to their exact location. On direct examination, defendant said the trousers were on a chair behind the bedroom door [18 Ill.App.3d 12] that could be seen only be opening the door all the way and looking behind it. On cross-examination, he testified that anyone entering the bedroom could see the trousers on top of the chair. His testimony did indicate, however, that one standing...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mendoza, No. 77-1247.
...where they have a right to be. (Harris v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 234, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 88 S.Ct. 992; People v. Holt (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376.) Here the officers viewed the items only after they were inside the apartment. Therefore a prerequisite for applicability of......
-
People v. De La Fuente, No. 78-449
...466, citing Brinegar v. United States (1949), 338 U.S. 160, (69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879)." People v. Holt (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376. The decisive issue, then, is whether the officer had probable cause to reasonably believe that the wallet was evidence of cri......
-
Williams v. State, 1 Div. 332
...was dressed in fresh clothing at the time of his arrest, it was proper for officers to seize pants atop clothes hamper); People v. Holt, 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376 (1974) (wherein the court held that, during arrest of defendant for recent armed robbery where assailant was known to hav......
-
People v. Montgomery, No. 78-1318
...control of the arrestee. (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra at 465-66, n. 24, 91 S.Ct. at 2037-2038; People v. Holt (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 12, 309 N.E.2d 376.) However, this seizure is proper only when three conditions are met: (1) the object seized is in plain view; (2) the off......
-
People v. Mendoza, No. 77-1247.
...where they have a right to be. (Harris v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 234, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 88 S.Ct. 992; People v. Holt (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376.) Here the officers viewed the items only after they were inside the apartment. Therefore a prerequisite for applicability of......
-
People v. De La Fuente, No. 78-449
...466, citing Brinegar v. United States (1949), 338 U.S. 160, (69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879)." People v. Holt (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376. The decisive issue, then, is whether the officer had probable cause to reasonably believe that the wallet was evidence of cri......
-
Williams v. State, 1 Div. 332
...was dressed in fresh clothing at the time of his arrest, it was proper for officers to seize pants atop clothes hamper); People v. Holt, 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376 (1974) (wherein the court held that, during arrest of defendant for recent armed robbery where assailant was known to hav......
-
People v. Montgomery, No. 78-1318
...control of the arrestee. (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra at 465-66, n. 24, 91 S.Ct. at 2037-2038; People v. Holt (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 12, 309 N.E.2d 376.) However, this seizure is proper only when three conditions are met: (1) the object seized is in plain view; (2) the off......